Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

2008: In Iowa and Florida

With the second campaign fundraising deadline over and the Fourth of July holiday week upon us, many of the 2008 presidential candidates will be out in full swing this coming week.

In fact, much of the field spent time in either of two key primary/caucus states Saturday; the Republicans at a forum in Des Moines and the Democrats at a Latino forum in Florida. These were forums, not debates; journalists who covered the events pointed out the points in agreement among the candidates on each side.

In Iowa, several of the G.O.P. candidates spoke at the gathering sponsored by Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance, and espoused conservative themes on abortion, marriage and taxes. Senator John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani weren’t there; and it appeared that the crowd was most interested in hearing former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (He once again faced questions about his Mormon religion among some of the social conservatives.

The Des Moines Register also published excerpts from the 20-minute speeches. Mark Barabak at The Los Angeles Times points out the common views held by those who spoke.

One Republican candidate, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, wasn’t invited to the forum because organizers said he didn’t have much of an Iowa organization in place. But he showed up anyway nearby, for his own rally and drew hundreds of supporters.

Some of the Democrats will be in the Hawkeye State this week, with a media crush sure to follow former President Bill Clinton as he campaigns with Senator Hillary Clinton through several cities. The Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut says aides promise he won’t be stealing her thunder, but speaking as her “biographer.”

Another candidate’s spouse who has definitely been stealing the spotlight and headlines is Elizabeth Edwards, whose confrontation with conservative commentator Ann Coulter last week caused a lot of buzz. The Times’s Adam Nagourney and Patrick Healy profile her campaign style, finding that despite Mrs. Edwards’s renewed battle with cancer, her role in promoting her husband, Democrat John Edwards, remains undiminished and at times, overshadows him.

Mr. Edwards was among the Democrats who appeared Saturday before the National Association of Latino Elected Officials in Lake Buena Vista near Orlando. Immigration was very much on the minds of that audience, and as The Miami Herald mentions, this was perhaps one of the few venues in the country where opposition to the border fence (and support for the overall legislation that failed in the Senate last week) drew applause. Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, head of the national Republican Party and original backer of the legislation, was among those in the audience. The Times’s Jennifer Steinhauer takes a broad look at how the failed vote could hurt the G.O.P.’s chances of courting Latinos in the long run.

Ron Paul had around 1000 people at this event, the actual Tax Relief event had around 500. So you make it sound a bit different than reality by saying “Ron Paul drew hundreds of supporters” when those added up to 1000 (breaking the 100’s level) and double the 500 at the original event Ron Paul was excluded from. This also isn’t pointed out in this article, isn’t is odd that the reason for excluding Ron Paul was Iowa organization of his supporters when there were more than for the other candidates combined?

Ron Paul did not draw hundreds of supporters, he had 1000 chairs set up, and there were people standing, at least 100 of them. That says that out of the 100 or so who drove in from out of state, there were 1000 from Iowa. Put that in your pipe.

the american people are being denied and the Primary process is being controlled…Dr. Ron Paul was excluded ON PURPOSE from the Iowa “roundtable”, even though he OWNS the internet. He held his own rally right next door to the debate…so what happened? Dont believe the Des Moines register.

Did republican candidate Ron Paul draw more attendees to his rally than the Iowa Tax Forum from which he was excluded? The campaign and some eye witnesses say that the rally held next door to an Iowa GOP tax forum – sponsored by the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance – drew at least 1,000 individuals. This would have been at least 200-400 more than the forum itself, and would have raised even more questions about the reasoning behind excluding Ron Paul – supposedly because he does not have an organization in Iowa, nor the capacity to build one.

The Des Moines Register reported the following: “Outsider Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul headlined a raucous campaign rally Saturday after a multi-candidate GOP forum in Des Moines to which the Texas congressman was not invited. An audience of more than 600 GOP activists turned out for the Paul event, held in Hy-Vee Hall next door to where six candidates addressed a subdued crowd of much the same size earlier. … Paul has built a loyal following of people attracted to the politician’s libertarian stance on constitutional rights and opposition to the war in Iraq.”

Iowapolitics.com meanwhile placed the Ron Paul rally attendance figures around 600 and the Iowa Tax Forum around 800. However, an apparent Ron Paul rally attendee put Ron Paul’s total much higher, commenting on the Des Moines Register article as follows: “Yep I was there, I was not going to say anything about this report that you have about Dr. Paul but I was there and I can tell, you are trying to make it look as if it was nothing. We had people in there from all walks of life, from all parties, from all faiths, from all over Iowa. We were there for the Dr. You say that there were about the same in Dr. Paul’s gathering as there were next door. Well I looked in there and there were plenty of seats available next door. We had all 1000 seats filled and there were at lease 200 people standing. So what you should have said is that one man drew twice as many as the forum. One of these days you will feel proud when you start to tell the truth. Stop following and be a leader. I know, because I was there.”

According to the AP, Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) got louder cheers than Mitt Romney. While Romney stands there seemingly terrified of his own advisors, Tom Tancredo said I know what I stand for and the Iowa crowd roared. What I can’t figure out is who is in charge of Romney’s campaign – is it his campaign advisors or is it his wife?

Who is the candidate running, Bill or Hillary? Why is the media rushing to cover his appearances? If Hillary is truly independent, why does she need to prop her husband up beside her on the campaign trail?

Yeah, I was there at the other candidates forum first, and there were between 500-600 people at that one and at least 1000 when I went to the Ron Paul rally. Im from Des Moines, IA and I saw a few people I knew there as well. Much more excitement at the Ron Paul rally. I was sorta for Tancredo at first, but after hearing Ron Paul speak, I think I’ll be voting for him. He spoke so much more detail than Tancredo did on the issues, and gave clear cut answers to problems, unlike the others. I still like Tancredo pretty much but would like to see a Ron Paul/ Tancredo ticket. Tancredo as vice pres.

Watched a few days ago the original version of the 1932 Academy Award best picture winner “Grand Hotel”. Set in Berlin just before Hitler took power there’s not a whiff of political unrest comes through in the movie.

Amazing the movie’s assumption the itinerant secretary played by Barbara Stanwyck who can only afford one meal daily wouldn’t be seething with resentment of the rich and the powerful. Women like her would be among the adoring crowds which welcomed Hitler’s entry into Nuremburg in Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will”.

The way we’re governed tofay has many similarities to the Weimar regime who cooed sweet words and politically correct slogans to provide cover for rapacious capitalists to rape the economy.

Hey one of my friends told me about Ron Paul… and I saw a video on YouTube. It’s obvious he’s not a politician like the other guys, and if it’s for real I might even vote this time. But, sorry, I’m new to this — how do you get rid of the I.R.S. and still pay for stuff? Will all his ideas work?

Dr. Paul’s forthright call for a prompt exit from Iraq; his adherence to Jeffersonian principles, the Consitution and civil rights; his belief in a balanced budget and a limit on the imperial executive — sounds like a true Democrat to me.

Seems like the grassroots movement of Ron Paul supporters is larger than the media generally is willing to admit. I think the liberal crowd isn’t paying much attention to him because he’s in the GOP, but the conservatives ignoring him makes me wonder. What are they scared of? He’s struck me as the most intelligent, patriotic, well-prepared one of the ten of them; maybe he’s too independent and smart to be easily controlled.

Also, Jenn (#13), you could easily replace income tax with new sources of revenue. For example, increase corporate tax, foreign tariffs, tax alcohol and gas, and legalize marijuana and tax that. Do all that and you could probably double the income from taxing citizens, not to mention the boost the economy would get from everyone suddenly getting 30% richer or more. Couldn’t say whether all of Dr. Paul’s ideas would work, but income tax should definitely be dropped.

Jenn, if we removed the income tax completely, the federal government would lose roughly 1/3rd of its income. The remaining 2/3rds would be enough to cover what the federal government’s budget was back in 2000. If we could only go back to 2000’s spending level, then we’d be fine. Further cuts in federal programs (many of them did not even exist, but were instead managed by states or other local governments until recently) would allow us to begin to pay off our national debt. There really is a lot that can be done.

Please listen to what Dr. Paul says. Yes, he wants to get rid of the I.R.S., but things like that don’t happen over night. And if you listen to the man talk you can tell he is a reasoned and educated practical person. He understands that all these things he would like to change are not going to happen over night. It will take a lot of work and he understands that.

As to your query about the IRS, the founders believed that the power to tax was the power to destroy. They believed in limited government and certainly didn’t endorse the taxation of productivity or the personal income tax. Until the 16th ammendment was ratified in 1913, direct taxation without apportionment was unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co.). This was the same year the Federal Reserve was created, to whom we pay interest to on our $9 trillion national debt (and who uses these payments to perform activities for its member banks and distributes profits to them as well). It wasn’t until the 30’s when (what would become) the IRS started taxing personal incomes; then just that of the very wealthy. And over the decades they worked their way down until today where even those living in poverty are taxed on their productivity.

On a practical note, the FY2008 budget is $2.9 trillion while individual tax receipts are expected to be $1.1 trillion. The FY2001 budget was $1.8 trillion. Don’t you think we could go back to the spending of just 6 years ago and therefore afford to eliminate them entirely?

Dr. Paul has pointed out on the floor of the House that personal income taxes make up around 30% of the federal budget. If we take away 30% of the budget, the total amount left is around the size of the 2000 budget. So if we can roll back spending to 2000 levels, we can do without the income tax. That’s just one example of how feasible it is.

The amazing thing about the IRS and the income tax is that if we completely eliminate them, the US Government will still pull in roughly as much revenue as the entire Federal budget for the year 2000. So, what sounds like a radical cut – and it would be – only need reduce the size of our Federal government to what it was before GWB was in the White House.

There are three “simple” ways to pay for it that Ron Paul advocates:
1. Drastically reduce our military presence around the world.
2. End the War On Drugs.
3. Drastically reduce the federal role in education, i.e., rescind No Child Left Behind.

1. The IRS itself takes tons of money just to operate. Eliminating it is part of saving cash.

2. Most if not all of income taxes are used just to pay down the INTEREST on the national debt. When we reduce reliance on foreign investment, income taxes will be less useful.

3. Not all taxes are eliminated. With a strict interpretation of the original Constitution, the INCOME tax is unconstitutional because it is not a tax on Profit. It is a tax on an even exchange of your Labor for money.

4. Elimination of massive government expenditure will ease the tax burden. There is overinflated spending (Halliburton overcharged the Department of Defense tons of $$) and spending that doesn’t really get us anywhere (what has the Department of Energy done for us)?

Many other politicians have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Ron Paul has not taken cash from these organizations and is beholden only to the People (us).

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” (Mahatma Gandhi)

The Ron Paul rEVOLution has begun.

Ironic, though, that promoting Liberty and defending the Constitution is viewed by our corporate “free press” as being so radical and revolutionary. Each and every one of us is the real Free Press. We will not be silenced. We will win.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…